I think what happened today is a healthy step, at nakausap namin ni Sen. Honasan ang mga secretaries and there will be a lot more meetings soon. They will form an informal technical working group para mapabilis ito.

Unang-una, congratulations sa ating mga kapatid sa media, mga advocacy groups at NGOs dahil sa inyong persistence sa FoI. I think the Palace gets the message that not only is it important and essential, it's also urgent.

I believe it's in good faith that the Palace wants a law that is workable, and a law that will really be good. But I think we also sent the message loud and clear na mas malaki ang damage ng walang FoI BIll kaysa sa isang FoI Bill na imperfect na tingin nila will cause the government damage or slow it down.

The two secretaries also assured Sen. Honasan and myself that we will have more constant contact to formally make a technical working group, informally, para maipasa ito. I think there were more common grounds raised today and I think they communicated very clearly na importante din sa kanila itong Bill na ito.

So I'm hoping that this will be the beginning of the end na of the discussion, and towards the passing of the Bill, rather than just a start of a long and tedious discussions. Ilang dekada nang hinihintay itong batas na ito at naniniwala ako that if we want real institutional reforms, kailangan ito.

Graft is still all around us. Corruption is still all around us. And the best way to fight it is transparency and accountability and make every Filipino citizen, and every resident of the country a graft buster.

First of all, ang nasabi ng pangulo sa LEDAC is that they are for transparency. At napakarami nang batas that are in place for transparency at ang problema ng FOI ay certain circumstances which they are discussing that could do more damage to the government or to public service rather than good. There were some specific examples discussed. So these are real concerns that have to be addressed. One group is researching on it and another group is discussing it so I agree po sa sinabi ni Chairman Honasan na dapat may time frame and we do it with a technical working group para harapan nating i-discuss.

(Just to clarify some key differences of the Palace and Senate version.)

'Yung iba terminology lang. For example using national security rather than internal and external defense. So personally, what's in a name? So kung magkakasundo naman in changing the terminology and making it broader, I think we'll be open to that.

The major difference that we will have some problems with and will have to address is the 'remedy' part.

But the reactions that I saw from the two secretaries awhile ago, well-taken 'yung point and that they're willing to review that so siguro ganyan naman talaga sa umpisa pag iba 'yung position.

Medyo naiinip lang po kami na it's taking so much time to get the discussions going but now that it is there, I mean even if Sen. Honasan called the hearing on the first day that he got the committee, kung wala namang i-sa-submit ang Malacanan at kung wala namang silang ipapakitang stand nila, walang mangyayari sa diskusyon namin.

We discussed it on the LEDAC although the discussion was why it wasn't included. The president actually gave directives to the two secretaries to coordinate and mabilis naman na tinugunan ito ng chairman natin.

Fortunately, the two gentlemen secretaries awhile ago expressed their openness to discuss how we can find a remedy to this. In fact they said that some of these points have not been discussed yet so I don't think the Malacanan wants to water it down.

I think in effect minsan parang watered down version ang lumalabas but I don't think 'yun ang intensyon nila. So I hope further discussion especially with the NGO's would be able to help us come up with a better bill but we have to work on it.

(on how access to information will be implemented)

'Yung last congress, ang naging solusyon natin diyan dalawa--number one, the more information you can put on the internet, para wala nang request-request. Number two, may form na tapos 'yung purposes nakalagay.

So check-an mo lang ang research pero kung halimbawa ilalagay mo doon "dahil may i-pe-persecute ako." (Hindi prosecute) May i-pe-persecute ako o may i-ba-black propaganda, 'yun ang bini-bring up kasi ng isang group na paano kung halimbawa may kikidnapin kasi ako so gusto ko malaman magkano pera nila. It might sound absurd but that's what some were discussing or thinking. It can be in the law that the purpose has to be specified but then again it will be in the details already of the discussion.

So two options--one option is to take out that phase, but then mismong sa Supreme Court decisions may nakalagay for legitimate purposes. Or we just specify legitimate purposes, for research purposes, whatever then let them check that.

Q: What do we expect from the Committee on Information... what is the timeline?

I cannot speak for the chair but I know he has clean intentions. I think we can assure you that we will do our best or hindi kami papayag na may provision diyan na magiging inutile ang FOI or magiging batas na pakitang-tao lang na pag inimplement mo na, hindi na magagawa.

Just for reference, by the end of the year ¼ na ng term ng Presidente , by 2013, half of the term na ang President. So both Sen. Honasan and I want this passed before matapos yung half-term ng Presidente so I won't even go to the ¾ of the whole term of the President. But the sooner the better. Remember, the Palace has so much influence over the House of Representatives and sa Senate naman galing siya dito. So informal talks are always very positive.

Actually, if magkakasundo sa versions, we can do this very fast. But we'd like it to be done sometime before the end of next year for a simple reason. The last time we did it na last two minutes, na-technical tayo ng House of Representatives and hindi nila pinasa yung BiCam report. So lahat ng efforts went down the drain.

If we can finish it sometime next year, there will be enough time for both Houses to reconcile their versions with Malacanang. And we can discuss remedies if it turns out not be the kind of bill we want.

Of course, like I said, the sooner the better.

Q: Do you think it would help if we change the name of the bill instead of using the contentious "FOI"?

Right now, it's not a big concern just as long as the substance is there. The reason why I wanted them to specify the identity of the bill is number one, para maging fair sa kanila. So pag kinicriticize natin na bakit mabagal, by them telling na it's essential and important, klaro na yun na hindi nila sinasadyang pabagalin ang proseso.

Number two, para pwede nating singilin. Kasi pag sinabi nila na there are other laws existing and hindi na kailangan ung FOI, they will be reminded that today they made it very clear that we need an enacted FOI law.

Q: Do you think the proposed information commission will simply be a roadblock? It's too early to say. But ang sinasabi ko, with proper amendments, as long as specified yung powers at hindi mawwater-down yung remedies, for me personally as one of the authors I don't object to having an Information Commission. As long as it doesn't water down both the rights and the remedies. In fact it might be helpful to have one agency na walang ginagawa kundi ganoon. Ang objection ko so far is, let me repeat although the two secretaries are willing to look at it again, that hindi mo pwedeng kasuhan yung isang government official pag wala silang recommendation. Yung mismong Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) na rin ang nagsabi na medyo malabo yun.

Q: Who should be part of the Information Commission?

We can argue both ways - na kahit saang ahensiya mo ilagay yan, tao din lang iyan. But there are certain positions, for example the Office of the Ombudsman, theoretically independent yun. But we've seen in the past that pwede namang hawakan ng Palasyo ang taong ito.

If we don't have full faith and confidence in the institution, we should put another remedy other than the current one. Right now, kung ipapasa natin yung version ng Palasyo parang umaasa tayo sa independence at trustworthiness nung ilalagay na commissioner.

Number three, lahat nung nagbabalak na may ipapalusot, just like the compromised agreement with Gen. Garcia, we can assure them that hindi mapapalusot ito. We can assure them na malalaman kasi madali na yung access sa information na yon.